United States v. Octavio Torres-Rivas, 825 F.3d 483

Torres-Rivas pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and entered a plea agreement on July 1, 2014.
The agreement said the United States would not object to a probation or court recommendation granting an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, and would move for an additional one-point reduction if the PSR recommended two points and the court accepted that recommendation; the government could withhold the additional motion if the defendant engaged in conduct inconsistent with acceptance.
The PSR described two letters allegedly threatening cooperating defendants and recommended an obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; it did not recommend an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
At sentencing the government argued the letters showed obstruction and urged denial of acceptance based on the letters and Torres-Rivas’s denials of relevant conduct; the district court rejected the obstruction enhancement but denied acceptance-of-responsibility, finding Torres-Rivas a leader and citing conduct before and after the plea.
Torres-Rivas appealed, arguing (1) the government breached the plea agreement by arguing against acceptance-of-responsibility and (2) the district court erred in denying the reduction.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the government did not violate the plea agreement and the district court did not clearly err in denying the reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether government breached plea agreement by arguing against acceptance of responsibility	Government knew of threatening letter at plea and thus promised not to oppose an acceptance reduction; arguing against it breached the agreement	Agreement conditioned government obligation on a PSR or court recommendation; no PSR recommendation here, so no obligation to support acceptance	No breach: plea terms only bound government not to object to a probation/court award; PSR made no recommendation, so government permissibly argued at sentencing
Whether district court erred in denying acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1	Torres-Rivas argued his guilty plea and admissions entitled him to the reduction	Court relied on post-plea conduct, denials in PSR objections, and credibility findings to deny the reduction	Affirmed: district court’s denial was supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous; great deference owed to sentencing court

United States v. Stobaugh, 420 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2005) (plea agreements are contractual and must be honored by government)
United States v. E.V., 500 F.3d 747 (8th Cir. 2007) (apply general contract principles to plea agreements)
United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (ambiguities in plea agreements construed against government)
United States v. Borer, 412 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2005) (no breach where government’s obligation was contingent on PSR language)
United States v. Gomez, 271 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2001) (government must follow clear plea agreement promises even if defendant later breaches)
United States v. Mosley, 505 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2007) (government violated plea agreement by arguing against acceptance when agreement stated defendant then appeared to qualify)
United States v. Shade, 661 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir. 2011) (defendant not entitled to acceptance reduction as matter of right)
United States v. Vega, 676 F.3d 708 (8th Cir. 2012) (burden on defendant to clearly demonstrate acceptance; defer to district court credibility findings)
United States v. Stapleton, 316 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2003) (focus of acceptance inquiry is conduct through time of guilty plea)
United States v. Jones, 539 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2008) (post-plea conduct and PSR objections can support denial of acceptance)